Report for HCR 55 DV Working Group

Author
Affiliation

Rebecca Tsang, Moji Abolfazli, and Adam S. Cohen

Hawaii State Judiciary

Published

January 16, 2026

Introduction

This report presents an analysis of three offenses for the domestic violence working group established under HCR 55 (Leg page):

The analysis focus on statewide data, disaggregated by circuit [under construction!], over a reporting period between January 1st, 2017 and December 31st, 2025. The following sections contain tables and graphs to explore different aspects of the data.

Section 1: Cases filed

Out of 6,578 cases filed statewide for TRO violations, OFP violations, or harassment by stalking during the reporting period, 28.7% had more than one charge.

  • % of cases with multiple TRO charges: 10.7%
  • % of cases with multiple OFP charges: 15.9%
  • % of cases with multiple harassment by stalking charges: 0.2%
  • % of cases with a combination of TRO violations, OFP violations, and harassment by stalking charges: 1.9%

Because 1.9% cases had a combination of charges, they are double counted in the case filing statistics below.

No cases in this data set had multiple defendants. However, some defendants had multiple cases. An analysis of defendants with multiple cases is provided in section 5.

Section 2: Charges filed

The data below represents the data at the charge level. To remain consistent with case filing data, the year reflects the year the case was initially filed, not when the charge was filed. Subsections within the same section have been collapsed into a section category code. For example, HRS 586-11(a)(1)(A) and HRS 586-11(a)(1)(B) are collapsed under the HRS 586-11 category. See the appendix for the mappings between subsections and section categories.

Because cases can have more than one charge both within and across offense categories, the number of charges is necessarily larger than the number of case filings.

If a case was filed before the reporting period but a charge in the case was filed during the reporting period, it is excluded from this dataset. Only charges from cases filed during the reporting period are included.

Section 3: Charge Dispositions

WARNING: Disposition estimates are highly unreliable due to inconsistent, inaccurate, and incomplete data entry. These figures may conflict with past and future reports and should be interpreted with caution. The severity of data quality issues makes these statistics unsuitable as a basis for decision-making.

The data below represents the dispositions, if any, on the charges in cases filed during the reporting period. To be consistent with case filing data, the year reflects when the case was initially filed, not when the charge was disposed.

Any charges filed prior to the reporting but disposed during it are excluded from this analysis. Only dispositions of charges from cases filed during the reporting period are included. Because of this, there are noticeably more pending charges from cases filed in 2025 and slightly more in 2024 that should be accounted for.

To view only one charge code section or one disposition category at a time in the table, use the search box. For example, typing “586-11” will show only rows for violation of orders for protection.

Section 4: Rule 48 Dismissals

Next, charges that resulted specifically in a Rule 48 dismissal are estimated. These charges dispositions are a subset of the discharged/dismissed category in section 3. WARNING: Rule 48 data is highly unreliable due to inconsistent data entry.

Section 5: Repeat offenders

Last, we look at repeat offenses. A repeat offender for this analysis includes someone who, for example, initially offends under 586-4 and reoffends under 586-4, but it also includes someone who, for example, reoffends under 586-11.

For violations of an order for protection, there are various subsections - HRS 586-11(a)(2)(A/B/C/D) - that are specific to repeat offenses. This analysis, however, does not rely exclusively on those subsections. If a defendant has a second case with a 586-11 charge that is not filed under these subsections, it is still included in the analysis. So, when an individual has multiple cases, there are at least three possibilities:

  1. the person was not convicted of any charges in the prior cases
  2. the person was convicted of a prior charge and the correct charge codes were used [e.g., HRS 586-11(a)(1)(A) for the first conviction and HRS 586-11(a)(2)(A) for the second]
  3. the person was convicted of a prior charge and the incorrect charge codes were used [e.g., HRS 586-11(a)(1)(A) for the first conviction and HRS 586-11(a)(1)(A) for the second].

Because analyzing case filings won’t differentiate people with multiple cases who have no prior convictions (possibility a) and those with prior convictions (possibilities b and c) and looking at charge filings cannot account for the issue in possibility c, we also use disposition data to more directly estimate repeat convictions, and to complement repeat case filing and repeat charge filing analyses.

There are several major limitations with this analysis. Given that the same defendant can be listed under multiple person IDs, if a person has repeat offenses but their person ID does not match across cases, then they will incorrectly go uncounted as a reoffender, so it is likely that the numbers below underestimate the frequency of reoffending during the reporting period.

Another limitation of the analysis is that a person could have had an offense prior to the reporting period. Since these charges are not in the dataset, this limitation has the effect of underestimating the number of repeat offenses.

The way to read the first row of the first table below is that there is one individual who had 22 cases during the reporting period. The sixth row indicates there are four individuals with 10 cases. The first row of the third table shows there are two people, each with eight cases in which at least one of the charges resulted in a conviction.

During the Reporting Period…
How Many Cases Did Defendants Have?
How Many Charges Did Defendants Have Across All Cases?
How Many Cases with At Least One Conviction Did Defendants Have?

Appendix

Charge category mappings

CHARGE_CODE Count of charges
586-11
HRS 586-11 2337
HRS 586-11(a) 3962
HRS 586-11(a)(1)(A) 572
HRS 586-11(a)(1)(B) 56
HRS 586-11(a)(2)(A) 38
HRS 586-11(a)(2)(B) 3
HRS 586-11(a)(2)(C) 7
HRS 586-11(a)(2)(D) 3
HRS 586-11(a)(3) 60
586-4
HRS 586-4 1688
HRS 586-4(e)(1) 2642
711-1106.4
HRS 711-1106.4 4
711-1106.5
HRS 711-1106.5 215
HRS 711-1106.5(1) 43

Disposition mappings

DISPOSITION_CODE Count of dispositions
Acquittal/Not Guilty
ACQ 35
ACQB 13
ACQJ 30
AQI 22
AQRI 47
Committed/remanded to another Court
CCC 183
RDC 1
TRF 6
Conviction
DAG 4
DNC 29
GLP 6
GLT 1007
GLTB 6
GLTJ 28
GLTW 1
GP 365
NCP 1343
NP 220
Discharged/Dismissed
DPJ 2361
DPJ48 90
DSC 38
DSM 421
DWO 1530
DWO48 81
SA 2
Nolle Prosequi
DNP 253
NPQ 962
Other
CDS 1
CLP 2
CR 4
MRG 2
NFA 6
NGT 20
NPCF 1
OTH 101
Pending
NA 2406